TED Conversations

Morgan Barnes

Law Enforcement Officer, government agency

This conversation is closed.

Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?

After yesterdays tragic shooting in Newtown CT and the worst year ever for firearm related deaths and mass killings , has the time for the US Government to tell the Gun Lobby it is over and repeal or amend "the right of the people to bear arms".

Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and military hardware, which makes it no longer viable on account of relevance to this day and age.

That Militia should be held to Law Enforcement agencies, Military and government controlled Para military agencies, with a show need, clause for people such as certain Primary producers etc.

Is it time to tell the NRA and the Gun Lobby there will be no more "collateral" damage no matter how much you donate to the "Party"

What would be the best way for the government to enforce such a law???

And please no Guns do not kill people, people kill people debates it was people who invented firearms in the first place.

The time has come to realise it is mainly our children who pay the ultimate price for lack of diligence in monitoring a problem that has been there for far too many years.


Closing Statement from Morgan Barnes

Firstly I would like to say I did not flag or delete anyone's comments I am perfectly capable of speaking for myelf however I did get frustrated and had some comments deleted myself.
As I write this President Obama has signed 23 executive orders inline with Colleen's post from yesterday from New York.

I have to admit I am a little disappointed that we could not of just discussed the issue in a more calm, critical and logical manner and be able to offer solutions as well as recognised the underling causes, as this is a forum for open ideas and thinking, Then again we are dealing with human nature.
To those of you from the International community thank you for your imput and allowing people to see the different views helds in different parts of the world on this subject.
I will not deny that the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights are the backbone of America, but remember it was written by man not given by god and man can take it away or amend it, if he really wants too.
I am a believer that in the 21st Century we should use it to advance humankind to address the problems of the world and improve it for all. It won't be easy but we have to start somewhere or we risk implementing our own destruction.
I hope that this be a positive start and and an even more positive step in which the US can show the way.
Once again I thank you all for your contributions

"In a progressive country change in constant : change is inevitable "Benjamen Disraeli

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 30 2012: I think it is fair to say that the decision to place restrictions on assault weapons isn't just arbitrary -- it is based on the fact that a schoolroom of children, a theater full of people, and a college campus, were all assaulted by people with those weapons. Combine those recent events with the fact that the U.S., which has the loosest gun laws in the industrialized world, leads the industrialized world in gun death -- and by a great margin. And I don't think that enacting any restrictions on assault weapons will be an easy excercise. So . . . to my mind it goes far beyond feelings about their being "unnecessary." What we're seeing is that many American now believe that assault weapons represent a considerable threat to themselves and their loved ones, which I do not see as arbitrary. As for interpreting the Second Amendment (what it might mean) -- what else do we have? Interpreting the constitution (what it might mean) is what our legal system is based on.
    • thumb
      Dec 30 2012: No Philip, it is not at all arbitrary...as you insightfully point out...it is based on events and behaviors that are threatening to humans. Unfortunately, some folks get their knickers in a knot and address the issue from fear, rather than from an informed, reasonable intent to reach a balance.
      • thumb
        Dec 30 2012: Is that what drove Vermont to have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation? Fear?
        Or are Vermont's laws the result of thoughtful, balanced, respectful, informed opinions that took in the issue of rights as well as safety, and rejected authoritarian options?

        What is the nature of the people who rely on regulation and can't take the time to make the deeper changes that are needed?

        Is it fear or just lazy-ness?

        Is it fear that you can't or don't have time to build a more civil society, so you just take the old authoritarian stance and hope it goes unchallenged?
        • thumb
          Dec 31 2012: Marianne,
          I believe Vermont's gun laws are the result of thoughtful, balanced, respectful, informed decisions, and it appears that our legislators are going to revisit this issue when they are back in session. I believe that is how we can all "build a more civil society".
      • thumb
        Dec 31 2012: Colleen, I said the ideas were uninformed and ignorant (as in unaware, not stupid), which in my opinion the comments prove. I did not call anyone ignorant. I did say self centered, I stand by that. I ask you to step out of Virginia and step into the shoes of the people you intend to take away from. I ask that of everyone including myself.

        As far as RPM is concerned, forget Google ... In order to have 12,000 rpm a gun would have to shoot 200 bullets per second. Do you think a gun can do that out of one barrel and be something you could carry around, let alone conceal?
        • thumb
          Dec 31 2012: Gary,
          For clarity, here is your comment.

          "Gary Taylor
          1 day ago: Dearest Mette,
          The anti gun crowd refuses to dig deeper into the issues behind these tragedies, they ignore the facts of gun ownership and how many people are responsible, they are self centered and only interested in satisfying their own uninformed and ignorant ideas without considering the huge number of capable gun owners and their wants."

          You ask me to step into other people's shoes? I've mentioned, on this thread, that I have lots of friends and relatives who are hunters, and have many guns, my father and a brother were law enforcement officers, and carried guns, friends keep small pistols for protection in their homes, I used to shoot skeet. I am familier with some guns, and have had them around me my whole life. I have no problem with guns that are used responsibly. That is not what we are talking about. Assault weapons are designed to kill people, and it is irresponsible for those guns to be freely circulating in our communities. I realize you disagree with this concept, and I respect your cjhoice. I do not agree with your choice. So, take your own advice, stop being disrespectful, and step into other people's shoes to at least try to understand something different than you think you know.
        • thumb
          Dec 31 2012: Gary,

          Regarding your question:
          "In order to have 12,000 rpm a gun would have to shoot 200 bullets per second. Do you think a gun can do that out of one barrel and be something you could carry around, let alone conceal?"

          Yes, it appears so. Here are a couple references. With a little research, you may learn that some machine pistols fire at a rate of 900-12,000 RPM. Pretty amazing huh? It always helps to have factual information when speaking about anything my friend. That may help change your practice of calling people ignorant and uninformed?



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.